Defining Terms (part 0)

The Naming of Parts

    Before we get too deep into this, it might be productive to talk about what exactly is/are comics. Personally, I don't think these sorts of non-actionable definitions are very important. Nevertheless, I'll spend a few minutes discussing McCloud's definition of comics as that is likely the definition anyone nerdy enough to read this blog is familiar with.

    All in all,  McCloud did a pretty good job of describing what he was seeing around him in the early 1990s. I mentioned last week that I've found his comics reading habits to be wide-ranging and thoughtful. The main objections I will lodge to his definition spring from comics I've enjoyed in the wild that violate one or more of his required elements. Some of these points have had to do with how the available digital tools have come to be used, versus how he imagined they would be used, at that very early date.

Comics = "Juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/or to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer."

Let's break this mouthful down into smaller, more manageable chunks.

"Juxtaposed pictorial and other images" - We can shorten "pictorial and other images" to just images. If you are including "other images" you are saying that the images in question don't have to be pictorial, so why even mention it? The bigger issue here, however, is the juxtaposition requirement. It's clear from his argument that McCloud wanted to rule out movies. Inadvertently, however, he also "problematized" the inset, that fairly common practice of placing the occasional panel on top of another panel. Recent digital comics have embraced this "on top of" move. It's now common to see panels appear on top of the panels they are succeeding. It's also possible that this juxtaposition requirement was important in forming the "Infinite Canvas" concept that I'll address at a later date.

..." in deliberate sequence..." - This section seems to forbid Choose Your Own Adventure style "Garden of Forking Paths" type comics as well as generative comics where the panel sequencing is an emergent property of the system. I guess the real question is who the "deliberator" is. Either way, I'm not convinced that it matters.

"... intended to convey information and/or to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer." - I'm not sure we need any of this. If I enjoy something and want to talk about it with others, it doesn't matter why or how the thing under discussion came into being. Origins are as often as not speculative. I never feel secure attributing a definite reason to why anyone did anything. People are complex creatures and mostly unknowable, even to themselves.

My Turn in the Ring

Obviously I'm going to propose my own definition now. Why else would I spin out such an elaborate exegesis? My stab at it:

Comics = "A sequence* of images** traversed through reader action".

*inclusive (temporal or spatial)
**inclusive (with or without words)

You'll have to tune in next time for further discussion on my thoughts behind this loose definition.